conduct. It is attested by a certificate of the Supreme Court, and is protected by registration. No one can practice law unless he has taken an oath of office and has become an officer of the court, subject to its discipline, liable to punishment for contempt in violating his duty as such, and to suspension or removal. It is not a lawful business except for members of the bar who have complied with all the conditions required by statute and the rules of the court. As these conditions can not be performed by a corporation, it follows that the practice of law is not a lawful business for a corporation to engage in. As it can not practice law directly, it can not indirectly, by employing competent lawyers to practice for it, as that would be an evasion which the law will not tolerate. "The relation of attorney and client is that of master and servant in a limited and dignified sense, and it involves the highest trust and confidence. It can not be delegated without consent, and it can not exist between an attorney employed by a corporation to practice law for it and a client of the corporation, for he would be subject to the directions of the corporation and not to the directions of the client. There would be neither contract nor privity between him and the client, and he would not owe even the duty of counsel to the actual litigant. The corporation would control the litigation, the money earned would belong to the corporation, and the attorney would be responsible to the corporation only. His master would not be the client, but the corporation, conducted, it may be, wholly by laymen, organized simply to make money and not to aid in the administration of justice, which is the highest function of an attorney and counselor at law. The corporation might not have a lawyer among its stockholders, directors, or officers. Its members might be without character, learning, or standing. There would be no remedy by attachment or disbarment to protect the public from imposition or fraud. No stimulus of good conduct from the traditions of an ancient and honorable profession, and no guide except the sordid purpose to earn money for stockholders. The bar, which is an institution of the highest usefulness and standing, would be degraded if even its humblest member became subject to the orders of a money-making corporation engaged, not in conducting litigation for itself but the business of conducting litigation for others. The degradation of the bar is an injury to the State. "The corporation can neither practice law nor hire lawyers to carry on the business of practicing law for it any more than it can practice medicine or dentistry by hiring doctors or dentists to act for it." Many persons who have not been admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia are making it their business, or part of their business, to prepare legal documents for others, to give advice of a legal nature, or to negotiate legal settlements; and this is done so openly and so extensively that your committee feels that it is unnecessary to name any that are so engaged. Your committee feels that it would be an injustice to name some and not all. The committee is of the opinion that a statute, similar to the statutes regulating the practice of law in many of the States, should be enacted by Congress to regulate the practice of law in the District of Columbia; that the statute should, in effect, make it unlawful for any person to practice law in the District of Columbia, unless he has been admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or unless his practice be confined to one or more of the other courts located in the District of Columbia, or one or more of the executive department of the Government, in which event such person shall first comply with the rules of such other court or courts or executive department or departments; that the act should provide that no persons shall use the words “attorney," "attorney at law," "counselor at law," or any such similar terms, unless said person has complied with the requirements of the act; and the act should further provide for prosecution in the police court for its violation. The by-laws of the barristers provide that a meeting shall be called at any time upon request in writing to the president, signed by five members. We, the undersigned, do hereby request that you call a stated meeting of the barristers and submit at said meeting this report of the committee, at which time the committee, below named, or some of its members, will offer a formal resolution, the purpose of which will be the approval of the barristers of securing legislation along the lines recommended by us. KENNETH N. PARKINSON. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LAW AND LEGISLATION, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS Your committee had before it the resolution of the West End Citizens Association, Federation R. 965, L. and L. 25, which resolution favors the passage of Senate bill 3223 "Relative to the qualifications of practitioners of law in the District of Columbia." At the present time there is nothing which gives the courts of the District of Columbia or any other official any control whatever over persons purporting to be lawyers and using words and phrases designed to represent to the public that they are members of the bar and qualified attorneys, nor is there any method by which this practice can be controlled so as to assure the public that when they do require the services of a qualified attorney they will be able to obtain that service and the resultant undivided allegiance of their counsel with the confidential relationship and right of privileged communications which they have revealed to him. The only control which our local courts have over such persons and corporations engaged in the various phases of representing the public as attorneys is if and when papers are filed and appearances made in the court, at which time the court, through its grievance committee, may institute appropriate action and impose appropriate penalty. There is no control over persons who use letterneads, circulars, pamphlets, and the like, together with printing on windows and doors designed to impress the public that they are qualified lawyers. The bill is designed to cover these situations as well as the corporate practice of law by banks, trust companies, and others and it is believed that the banks and trust companies, in cooperation with the lawyers, after the passage of this bill will be benefited thereby. The bill in its present form has been agreed upon unanimously by the committee on unlawful practice of the American Bar Association and by like committees of the barristers and the Bar Association of the District of Columbia. The latter two entire organizations have approved the bill and urged its passage. The trend of legislation on this subject is in favor of the bill in its present form, without a definition of what constitutes practicing law. New York State, in its first legislation, defined the practice but later amended the bill to take out the definition. There are numerous cases defining the practice under decisions in States where the statute does not define it and it is felt that although the States which have the legislation are divided about equally on this subject, the more recent statutes do not define it and the barristers, bar association, and the American Bar Association committee, after detailed study of decisions and legislation in all States where the subject has been under discussion, unanimously approve this bill with the definition omitted therefrom. The reasons, among others, for the omission of the definition are that the public would not be benefited by the narrowing of the scope of the legislation and that there being numerous decisions defining the subject it is advisable to leave the matter to the discretion of the court in order that each case presented may be decided upon its own facts. Your committee is not informed as to the attitude of the committee of the Women's Bar Association of the District on this point but it is advised that the association as a whole has approved and urged the bill as read. There is attached hereto a copy of the report of the bar association's committee together with a copy of the bill. Your committee therefore recommends that the federation give its indorsement to the measure to the end that it may become a law, and that it authorize some member of the federation to appear before the appropriate committees of Congress in support thereof. O 72D CONGRESS 1st Session SENATE { REPORT No. 562 EXTENDING PROVISIONS OF DESERT LAND LAW TO CEDED LANDS OF FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION APRIL 11 (calendar day, APRIL 14), 1932.-Ordered to be printed Mr. NYE, from the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 5484] The Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5484) extending the provisions of the act entitled "An act to provide for the sale of desert lands in certain States and Territories," approved March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 377), and act amendatory thereof, to ceded lands of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment. The facts concerning the proposed legislation are set forth in the report of the House Committee on the Public Lands (H. Rept. No. 21, 72d Cong., 1st sess.), as follows: [House Report No. 21, Seventy-second Congress, first session] The Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5484) extending the provisions of the act entitled "An act to provide for the sale of desert lands in certain States and Territories," approved March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 377), and acts amendatory thereof, to ceded lands of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, have carefully considered the same and recommend its passage with the following amendments: Line 7, after the word "Reservation", insert the words "opened to entry by the act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 672)". Line 8, after the words "ceded lands on", strike out the word "the", and insert in lieu thereof the word "that". Line 9, strike out all after the word "Act". The pending legislation simply provides for the application of the desert land law to ceded lands on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho, which have been restored to the public domain. The bill was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, whose report is hereto attached. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. JOHN M. EVANS, Chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your request of December 18, for a report on H. R. 5484, which would extend the provisions of the act of March 3, 1877, and acts amendatory thereof, to ceded lands of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, there is transmitted herewith a memorandum on the subject that has been submitted by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in whose views I concur. Sincerely yours, RAY LYMAN Wilbur. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Reference is had to the request of Hon. John M. Evans, chairman Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, for a report on H. R. 5484, entitled, "A bill extending the provisions of the act entitled 'an act to provide for the sale of desert lands in certain States and Territories,' approved March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 377), and acts amendatory thereof, to ceded lands of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation." The bill provides that the desert land law shall be made applicable to the ceded lands on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and that no land shall be disposed of at less than the price fixed by the act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 672). That part of the former Fort Hall Indian Reservation ceded by the act of February 23, 1889 (25 Stat. 687), was restored to the public domain without an appraised price and is subject to disposition as other public lands. The lands opened to entry under authority of the act of June 6, 1900, supra, were classified and appraised prior to the opening, and were disposed of at the appraised prices. As the bill now reads it would require the prices fixed by the act of June 6, 1900, to be paid for land opened under the act of February 23, 1889. It is therefore suggested that the bill be amended by adding after the word "Reservation" in line 7, "opened to entry by the act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 672)," and by striking out the word "the" at the end of line 8, and substituting therefor the word "that" and striking out everything after the word "act" in line 9. As amended the bill would read: "That the provisions of the act entitled 'An act to provide for the sale of desert lands in certain States and Territories,' approved March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 377), and acts amendatory thereof, are made applicable to the ceded lands on the former Fort Hall Indian Reservation opened to entry by the act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 672): Provided, That no land shall be disposed of at less than the price fixed by that act." If amended as suggested, I know of no objection to the passage of the proposed C. C. MOORE, Commissioner. bill. O |